Sturges v Bridgman [1879]

Facts

  • Defendant owned large pestle and mortar, which the claimant did not complain about for a while
  • The claimant then bought a consulting ‘shed’, at which point the large pestle and mortar became a nuisance

Issue

  • Could the defence of 20 years prescription be used

Decision

  • No, claim succeeded

Reasoning

  • As the nuisance only became actionable at the time of purchase of the ‘shed’, it had not been actionable for 20 years, although the activity had occurred for more than 20 years

 

RELATED CASE  Warren v Scruttons [1962]

Posted in Tort Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 25th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy